Midkiff, a Supreme Court case about Hawaiian real estate law, has been touted as a perverse result…. all that Hawaiian land bought by the Japanese….misguided judicial foray into property rights law.
But these are the very judges they exhort to closer scrutiny.
But, isn’t buying and selling land the ‘free’ market at work?
And if foreigners happen to buy it, isn’t that just ‘free trade’ in real estate, like free trade in widely held mortgage-backed securities?
And if free trade has had so called ‘free riders’, what is wrong with that?
Aren’t collateralized securities just a natural development of unfettered innovative financial markets?
If securities specialists game, or free ride, the financial markets, isn’t that just a ‘return to innovation’, so-called entrepreneurship (I learned a few of these fancy words in the home finance game)?
And, hey, what’s wrong in America with gaming a game? Do real property rights, free trade, or market state spokesmen have anything coherent to say about any of this?
One traditional argument against government intervention in industry has been no one can ‘pick winners’, only markets, under the ‘invisible hand’, can.
Yet some governments, with a little help from other governments like ours, can pick and promote winners (My firm wasn’t one of them! We just got off-shore in time.)
Japan has long picked itself and its exporting industries and cities as winners, and picked America and its industries and cities as losers.
No comments:
Post a Comment